US Appeals Court Rules Against North Dakota Tribes in Voting Rights Act Lawsuit
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that two tribal groups may not bring a voting discrimination lawsuit against the state of North Dakota under a civil rights law—a decision that is set to have implications in seven Midwest states.
In a 2–1 decision, the St. Louis-based Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that private plaintiffs cannot use
The decision was in response to a
The ruling further weakens voters' power in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, according to the Campaign Legal Center, which represented the tribes in the legal challenge.
'This decision severely undermines the Voting Rights Act and is contrary to both the intent of Congress in enacting the law and to decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming voters' power to enforce the law in court,' Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at the center, said in a
'If left intact, this radical decision will hobble the most important anti-discrimination voting law by leaving its enforcement to government attorneys whose ranks are currently being depleted. Campaign Legal Center will continue to fight to uphold the VRA and ensure fair maps.'
Related Stories
5/14/2025
5/14/2025
Gaber did not state whether the center would pursue further appeals, but the plaintiffs could ask the full Eighth Circuit to rehear the case or take it to the Supreme Court.
The vast majority of Voting Rights Act cases are filed by private parties.
The latest ruling comes after the same appellate court restricted the ability of voters to file lawsuits challenging voting maps when it ruled in 2023 that only the Department of Justice—and not private plaintiffs—can pursue cases enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
That
Federal Judge Sides With Tribes in Redistricting Lawsuit
Civil rights advocates last year opted against appealing the 2023 ruling to the Supreme Court,
That avenue was
A federal judge in North Dakota relied on the same federal civil rights law in 2023 when he sided with the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and voters in holding that the state's 2021 redistricting plan unlawfully diluted the Native American tribes' voting power.
However, Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender, writing for the majority in Wednesday's decision, said Congress did not speak with a 'clear voice' that 'manifests an unambiguous intent to confer individual rights' in Voting Rights Act's Section 2 that could be enforced through Section 1983.
Gruender, in finding that the plaintiffs do not have a cause of action, added that the district court erred in its 2021 decision.
He vacated the district court's judgment and dismissed the tribes' lawsuit.
In a lone dissenting opinion, Chief Circuit Judge Steven Colloton wrote that the majority was wrong, pointing to the lengthy history of more than 400 lawsuits that have resulted in judicial decisions brought under the Voting Rights Act's Section 2 since 1982.
He noted that Section 1983 says individuals may sue if they are subjected to 'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'
'The reference to 'and laws' encompasses any law of the United States,' Colloton wrote.
The Epoch Times contacted the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
ICE arrests under Trump top 100,000 as officials expand aggressive efforts to detain migrants
Arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during President Trump's second term topped 100,000 this week, as federal agents intensified efforts to detain unauthorized immigrants in courthouses, worksites and communities across the U.S., internal government data obtained by CBS News shows. On Tuesday and Wednesday, ICE recorded more than 2,000 arrests each day, a dramatic increase from the daily average of 660 arrests reported by the agency during Mr. Trump's first 100 days back at the White House, the federal statistics show. During President Biden last year in office, ICE averaged roughly 300 daily arrests, according to agency data. The latest numbers show ICE is getting closer to meeting the far-reaching demands of top administration officials like White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, an immigration hardliner who has forcefully pushed the agency to conduct "a minimum" of 3,000 arrests each day. On Wednesday morning, ICE was holding around 54,000 immigrant detainees in detention facilities across the country, according to the data. The Trump administration is asking Congress to give ICE billions of dollars in extra funds to hire thousands of additional deportation officers and expand detention capacity to hold 100,000 individuals at any given point. Officials are also looking at converting facilities inside military bases into immigration detention centers. The marked increase in ICE arrests across the country — especially in major Democratic-led cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration officials — comes after the Trump administration replaced two of the agency's top leaders amid internal frustrations that arrests numbers were not high enough. CBS News reached out to the representatives for ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for comment. Trump administration officials have framed the aggressive expansion of immigration operations as necessary to fulfill the president's signature campaign promises of cracking down on illegal immigration, expelling immigrants with criminal histories and overseeing the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history. But to boost arrest numbers, ICE has resorted to more aggressive — and controversial — tactics that have triggered outrage and even confrontations in some communities. Those efforts include arrests of migrants and asylum-seekers showing up to court hearings or check-in appointments that the government instructed them to attend. Immigration lawyers have strongly denounced those arrests, saying they deter migrants from complying with the legal process. Immigration roundups at some worksites have also been reported recently. Videos of some ICE arrests have depicted sobbing women and children being escorted into vehicles outside of immigration courts. Footage has also captured community members confronting federal agents — some of them masked — as they take migrants into custody. One video showed construction workers suspected of being in the U.S. illegally lined up after an ICE-led operation on their worksite in Florida. And while ICE has been arresting many immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally and also have criminal records, the agency is simultaneously detaining non-criminal migrants living in the U.S. without proper documents — including longstanding residents — amid the Trump administration's pressure to increase arrest levels. Among them is Marcelo Gomes, an 18-year-old Brazilian-born high school student in Milford, Massachusetts, who was arrested by ICE last week on his way to volleyball practice. While ICE has acknowledged that agents were looking for his father when they arrested Gomes, it has kept the teenager in detention, saying he's in the U.S. illegally. Gomes' lawyer said her client initially lived in the U.S. on a temporary visa that had since lapsed. Before Mr. Trump took office, someone like Gomes would likely not have been arrested by ICE, given his age, his lack of any criminal record and the fact that he came to the U.S. as a child over a decade ago. But the Trump administration has reversed Biden-era restrictions on ICE operations that directed the agency to largely focus on detaining serious criminals, recent arrivals and national security threats, like suspected terrorists. While ICE employees have spearheaded Mr. Trump's immigration crackdown, the agency is receiving support from other federal agencies as part of an unprecedented effort by the administration to muster manpower and resources from across the government for immigration enforcement. The federal agencies now helping ICE arrest unauthorized immigrants include Customs and Border Protection; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Internal Revenue Service. The Trump administration has also enlisted local and state law enforcement officials in friendly jurisdictions like Florida to support ICE operations.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chris Hayes: GOP civil war erupts as Musk ratchets up attacks on Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
This is an adapted excerpt from the June 4 episode of 'All In with Chris Hayes.' There's a civil war brewing in the Republican Party and it's threatening the centerpiece of Donald Trump's legislative agenda: his one big, beautiful, disgusting abomination of a bill, which the Congressional Budget Office says will add almost $2.5 trillion to the deficit, while depriving more than 11 million Americans of health care coverage in the next decade. That bill is now meeting new resistance from far-right members of Congress, thanks to the actions of Trump's one-time wingman, Elon Musk. Shortly after his DOGE days in the White House ended in embarrassing fashion, with a literal black eye and reports left and right about alleged drug use and other weird behavior, Musk started this week off by declaring war on Trump's legislation. (Musk has denied the reported drug use.) 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk posted on his social media platform, X, on Tuesday. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' To say this leaves the Republican caucus in disarray would be an understatement. Just days ago, House Speaker Mike Johnson, who is shepherding the spending bill through Congress, posted a photo of himself riding in style with Musk and Trump. But on Wednesday, he said he couldn't even get Musk on the phone. 'We've gotta get it done, and I think Elon understands the weight of that,' Johnson told reporters. 'I hope he comes around, and I'd love to talk to him this week, and I hope he calls me back today.' (As of Thursday morning, Johnsons told reporters they were still playing phone tag.) Hours after that Wednesday news conference, Musk posted a call to action against the Trump legislation on X: 'Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.' (In case that was too subtle, eight minutes later, he also posted a movie poster for the film 'Kill Bill.') But this is more than just a food fight. Remember, Musk threatened to primary Republicans who won't toe the MAGA line. Now, the threat seems to be that he could primary Republicans who pass Trump's bill. And so some of those Republicans are tying themselves in knots to try to keep both Trump and Musk happy. When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia was asked about Musk's criticism, she told reporters, 'Well, you know I have to agree with him on one hand. I always love it when Americans are angry at the federal government and express it … And so, do I like the price tag of the bill? No. But I want to get off the Biden and Democrat CR that this government is currently funding on.' At one level, this is a story of two people with enormous egos who were never going to be content as co-presidents. But the deeper story here calls into question the entire Trump enterprise and what Trump was using Musk for, which was to make really unpopular cuts across the government. Cuts that followed the Project 2025 playbook and appealed to the most hardcore anti-government extremists in the Republican base and far-right members of Congress, like the House Freedom Caucus, who want a government small enough to drown in a bathtub. But as a policy, that approach is substantively disastrous and politically unpopular. It is not even popular with Trump, who has no qualms about running up massive budget deficits. He told everyone he's not going to touch Social Security or Medicare. But he has to worry about pro-austerity Republicans, so he outsourced the austerity to Musk and DOGE. That way, Trump could say to the anti-government vanguard in Congress, 'Oh, don't worry about the deficit and the debt or spending, because I've got Musk going to town over there. He's just going to cut all the stuff you don't like, and no one in Congress is going to have to take hard votes.' But this was always a dubious play. First, because what DOGE was doing was illegal, as many courts have found. Second, Musk wasn't actually making a dent in federal spending. He decimated our international aid budget, but that was never where the big government spending was, contrary to all the lies and false conspiracy theories Musk spread. Most importantly, Musk's activities were so unpopular that the American people's outrage blew back on Trump and the Republicans. In town hall after town hall, it became clear that Trump's play for plausible deniability was a failure. That's why I believe the White House didn't keep Musk on and why he's freelancing now. Trump's special weapon against party division has always been his cult of personality. When it comes to voting for their own beliefs or voting for Trump, Republican lawmakers almost always vote for Trump. That was enough to get the bill through the House. But there are Republicans, particularly in the Senate, folks such as Sens. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who are being very vocal about wanting to scale back Trump's legislation drastically, to pull it apart or to kill it. And now, thanks to political cover from Musk, senators such as Tuberville, Paul and Johnson may be even more emboldened to resist Trump. This is the Frankenstein's monster that Trump helped create: A guy who has virtually unlimited funds to primary politicians he doesn't like. Musk is giving these Republicans cover to rail in the way that they are politically comfortable with — and he has a massive social media platform that he can use to supercharge the debate, just as he used it to spread totally ridiculous stories and false numbers about what DOGE has been up to. That points to a real danger here: Musk's propaganda machine now rivals Fox News in its ability to influence and target the right wing of the Republican Party. It seems Trump is discovering that his oligarchy would be great … if it weren't for the oligarchs. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
